And the exact same thing can be said for racial slurs, race-face makeup, fucking nooses, That dumbass "ching-chong" thing people do to Asians, using the word "female" as a noun when referencing humans etc.

Is this wrong? English is not my native, sorry. I had thaught here that Female or female-bodied where right terms._________________Be mellow
Be compassionate

Is this wrong? English is not my native, sorry. I had thaught here that Female or female-bodied where right terms.

Oh that's totally OK. It's fine to describe a person with the word "female" or describe them as "female-bodied" and that's OK, that's not using it as a noun, that's using it as an adjective.

But talking about "females" as in a noun like that, i.e., "Females are such and such" or "Females do such and such" or "blah blah blah many females..." ...sounds dismissive and a slightly insulting because usually we more typically use "females" and "males" as nouns when we are talking about animals.

The usage of "female"-as-noun is fairly common among some types of mra and garden variety macho douchebag.

Also it makes you sound like a Ferengi.

Last edited by Cactuar on Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:52 am; edited 1 time in total

And the exact same thing can be said for racial slurs, race-face makeup, fucking nooses, That dumbass "ching-chong" thing people do to Asians, using the word "female" as a noun when referencing humans etc.

Is this wrong? English is not my native, sorry. I had thaught here that Female or female-bodied where right terms.

It depends. In some contexts I talk about female-bodied people, but this s because there are people with female bodies who don't identify as women, but who recieve the same treatment. I should also include female identified there.

The same that applies to the problematic nature of certain slurs and racist practices also pretty much applies to arguments about the problematic nature of pornography. You can't really understand it outside of the context.

But that doesn't mean that you can just philosophically interpret the negative aspects away. This stuff is happening in the real world and we need to look at it in terms of how it is influenced by and in turn affects the real world.

I don't think Thenadathor took it outside the context and how it affects the real world, I think his/her opinion focused on the 'if you can find a single exception, you can't make an absolutely accurate general claim'. As a thought, this isn't incorrect. And it is 'inside' the world because the exception was taken from a real-world example.

If you want to make the case that we should deem something (like porn) either beneficiary or harmful, depending on its majority of applications/manifestations, it's your choice. If someone else wants to deem said something as 'beneficial or harmful depending on the situation', it's their choice too. None of these choices is 'incorrect', it's a matter of how you want to approach reality.

I agree with the maxim that a single exception invalidates absolute general claims, though I'm just not sure how useful it is as a descriptor for things where the scales are massively tipped.

I am not and have not mad a statement about the total, absolute merits or lacktherof of all porn. I'm not saying making an absolute sweeping statment is valid.

Buuuuut.... if your position is basically that "everything is relative" in the sense that value judgements cannot be made, we will have to disagree. Even if absolute statements cannot be made about a given proposition, that is no basis to claim that one statement is not or cannot be more or less correct than another.

... as in the fallacy where someone claims that since there are only two possible outcomes, they are each 50% likely. This is not necessarily true, it could be 80/20. (I am not claiming you make this fallacy, I merely find it a good analogy to evaluating subjective claims of wrongness)

EDIT: Also for context I am not a moral relativist. I am some kind of consequentialist.

I am not a more relativist either and I totally understand your 50% vs 20/80 example. Especially in the 'seeing a swastika in public' it makes perfect sense.

I disagee on definition with 'more or less correct', in the sense that I view 'correctness' as an absolute term. But, we can quantify it and solve the situation by viewing how 'far' from the absolute correct statement, two different incorrect statements lie. In that case, both statements would still be incorrect, but one would be farther from the truth. I, personally, wouldn't feel comforable calling one 'more correct' or 'less incorrect' than the other because I see correct/incorrect as binary, mutally exclusive ,absolutes ,but an understanding would be achieved.

Okay, porn. We have subjects and consumers. I dislike the gender binary, but that makes things even more confusing and I wanna just talk about things topically so lets first assume the idea of two genders makes sense (it doesn't).

The statement "ALL PORN IS BAD/SEXIST" is impossible to justify. Rational thinkers understand this. 99.9999999999% of porn could be bad and the statement still wouldn't make sense.

The core of this issue is the dual concepts of the individual level and the macro-cultural level. if you think the individual level doesnt matter even a little bit, dont read my posts. we disagree on such a fundamental ontological level that we won't be useful to each other.

The obvious truth is that on the individual level, there DOES exist porn which depicts women enjoying sex without inherently having much, if any, patriarchy-enforcing tendencies. Mysogynists could watch it, enjoy it, and pretend the women involved are submissive and helpless and all those other nasty associations, but there DOES exist content which does not seem to come pre-packed with this mysogyny. http://www.ifeelmyself.com/public/main.php is one example, in my opinion.

The thing that some radfems fail to recognise in my opinion is that porn, that is, the idea of watching people do sexy things and then doing sexy things while watching them do sexy things, is not inherently sexist. Its something that engages with sexuality, and often has a message. Not everything that engages with sexuality and has a message is inherently sexist! Its the same reason political correctness fails to solve racism: the decision to talk about culture and race and the definitions of those words and trends and how these words interact is not inherently racist, in fact if I may editorialize a bit, I think being afraid to engage in a discussion about race for fear of being dehumanized actually reinforces racism by making the topic taboo and difficult to engage with, engagement which leads to healing. Similarly, believing that the act of watching sexual stuff happen on a screen for the purposes of being aroused is inherently sexist actually reinforces sexism.

The porn industry (like all media) has become decentralized due to the Internet, among other things. There are pockets of porn where things are good, everyone is happy, and nobody feels exploited. They are smaller than the ones where women are made to depict things which give me a psychic revulsion, be it due to the more obvious or subtle reinforcing of really shitty gender roles. THE TWO PREVIOUS SENTENCES BOTH CO EXIST. Personally, I try and avoid and rally against the stuff that doesn't work, and while I don't really watch porn anymore these days, I celebrate the stuff that does work culturally. Flipping the table or holding your breath or all those other ways of colloquially being obstinate or dogmatic are not helping.

I will wager I can link between 5 and 10 sites that range from problematic to vile for every sex positive minimally problematic site you could post up.

I said it earlier, the fact that non-degrading porn exists, does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that it is a significant portion of porn consumed._________________

One of my friends from childhood works at ifeelmyself and stars in their videos. She loves it so much and was considering doing a run at kink.com because she's always really wanted a really intense experience like that, and it would finance a trip home to the states in a day.

I must admit I've been wondering if this porn discussion is only RL people porn or if we're including books, animated, and comic book forms too. Basically any type that doesn't have real people to potentially exploit although it could still give bad sexual role models.

Also, blanket statement time: I find heterosexual porn (specifically catered to straight men or women) to contain most of the gross sexist crap out there. Even more glaringly obvious when it molds gay people into those roles. Odds are there's people out there that have those relationship dynamics, but not in the numbers represented by the media.

One time a guy bought me porn, and then asked if we could watch it. So I said sure. He proceeded to masturbate. I made social commentary about the story and found it utterly hilarious.

Him: (Indignant) That's not how you use it!
Me: (Shrugs) I'm doing the only thing with it that could bring me joy,

I think he left at that point.

Good times.

Awesome. =)_________________"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger

The obvious truth is that on the individual level, there DOES exist porn which depicts women enjoying sex without inherently having much, if any, patriarchy-enforcing tendencies. Mysogynists could watch it, enjoy it, and pretend the women involved are submissive and helpless and all those other nasty associations, but there DOES exist content which does not seem to come pre-packed with this mysogyny. http://www.ifeelmyself.com/public/main.php is one example, in my opinion.

I didnt dig too deep into this link, but i disagree that showing such 'ideal' examples of feminine beauty is harmless. If you actually want to watch porn that is more morally defensible/non-selfdestructive, i suggest you look up some amateur stuff (god knows there are heaps of exceptions, so yeah, some is still soul-numbingly offensive, but some features physically average people, generally not even plastic surgery enhanced). While not personally true, it is easy to see that most people will have their expectations affected.

Simply put, i think i agree with +90% of your post, but i still think porn is inherently harmful, like cigarettes, booze and other drugs. Can they be enjoyed occasionaly without ruining lives? Sure, but they are all bad for you.

Also... why on earth do humans not self-identify as animals?? Unless you have a religion that insists on humans being 'special', this strikes as a ridiculously arrogant stance. Humans have terrible habit of setting ourselves outside the system we dwell in, often with bad results. Imho, if you as a human take offence at being associated with/identifiee as an animal, wouldnt it make sense to question WHY you find that offensive? This is somethinga feminist should ask themselves. That said, if any term is used in a derogitory manner, it becomes insulting. it seems kinda obvious that humans will create new insult words, or weaponize previously inoffensive ones, so if people concentrate simply on blanketing words like female (as a noun), youre choosing to play catchup, rather than being proactive. I suppose that bothered me because i dont see the word as inherently (such as nigger) insulting, nor insulting due to normal modern usage/conotations (ie retard). So yeah, female canbe used poorly, but so can nearly any word.

Last edited by khan on Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

Some humans do self identify as non-human animals. From what I've seen, it usually comes from a want for special powers, disgust about the very idea of being human, and a large crop of issues. (I know there are relatively normal people with these kinds of beliefs, but I'm talking about what I've come across.)

The whole 'humans aren't animals' thing seems to also come from a need to be special._________________::crisis mode::

Porn regularly displays scenarios, and behaviors that are just this side of degrading for a lot of women, and in a lot of cases are completely degrading and that is the entire point and this is bad.

A great deal of young men are now exposed to hardcore pornography long before they have their first face to face sexual experience. When they fall back to what they "know" works it creates a great deal of trouble, both in his expectations of what to do, and hers in what to expect.

The fact that respectful porn exists in some amount doesn't really mitigate the effects of the problematic shit, which is ubiquitous.

I was literally falling asleep when I posted that. It was a really simplified version of something that sounded awesome in my head.

Though could one argue by having these very intense and questionable porn are almost like violent movies and games? Could this be used as an outlet for them to get rid of these questionable emotions and actions instead of acting on them?

I'm not justifying it though, I don't watch that kind of crap because it's deplorable to me. Just something that sprung to mind._________________The Angry Asshat.

Though could one argue by having these very intense and questionable porn almost like violent movies and games? Could this be used as an outlet for them to get rid of these questionable emotions and actions instead of acting on them?

I'm not justifying it though, I don't watch that kind of crap because it's deplorable. Just something that sprung to mind.

Not sure how much history you know, but do you know why empire era romans still went to the arenas philosophically? The excuse they used was that they needed to used to extreme violence and bloodshed. You know, so that random townsfolk who will definately not be joining the army feel comfortable with violence.

Watching fucked up porn for a plurality of people results in their norms being affected. Look up some old treatments for pedos... psychiatrists suggested they beat off while fantasising, but this actually was counter productive, as it affected subconciously their expectations.

Edit: personally, ive watched deliberately some very messed up porn, and consumed it in forms that did not directly harm others... either way, i still have a crummy orgasm and feel more than vaguely nauseated by what i inexplicably forced myself to 'enjoy'. I know i have harmed my very soul, yet i honestly dont know why i consumed such rubbish. This also applies to what monkey said, i guess; sometimes the viewer is harmed more than the performer (esp if the performer is into it).

Last edited by khan on Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:03 pm; edited 1 time in total